Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-05-30
TIE SUPREME COURT.

A. H. Willie. chief Justice; j. W. Stayton and
clerk; NJ. NJ Johnson, bailif.
James K. Farrar VS.. Talley & Hester,
from Throckmorton; opinion by Gaines,
A. j. Appellant brought suit below to
recover damages foc the wrongful suing
out OF 8 writ of attachment. The follow
Ing are the facts: Appellant had flock
of sheep in Throckmorton county under
the charge of one Hamilton. Hamilton
contracted debt with appellee and drew
draft for same on appellant which was
unpaid. Suit was brought againts appel
liant and Hamilton and writ of attachment
sued out. The ground for the writ was
thai appellant lived in another county
and Hamilton secreted himself. The
sheep were levied on as the property Of
appellant and Hamilton, but the suit was
dismissed because one Major Smith
wanted to buy the flock under an eXecu-
ton against Hamilton and thus pay ap
pellee's claim. The testimony showed that
while appellant and Hamilton had at one
time been co-owners of the sheep, yet the
latter had bought out Hsmilton's share.
1t showed also that the only grounds
which sppellees relied on to consider
Hamilton as appellants agent was the
fact that appellant had paid other drafts
on him, and that Hamilton had said he
was his agent. Appellee Tally also testi-
| fed that he had heard that appellant
would not pay his debts without process
of law, while it was proven that
appellant owed no debts and
owned q great deal of property. The
court erred in rendering judg-
ment against appellant as appellees hadno
ground for an attachment, and wholly
failed to show that Hamlltons was ap
pellant's agent to contract debts for him.
The law did not at all warrant the attach
ment, and it being an illegal advantage
| to attempt to collect q pretended claim
was not only wrongful but malicious;
that the property when returned was
more valuable than when levied on does
not cut of the damages for the wrongful
| levy of the attachment II in another
trial it be proven that appellant lost his
property he must recover their value at
the time of the levy, and if there
was not probable cause for
the attachment malice will be implied
and exemplary damages awarded. The
| Judgment is reversed and the cause re-
| manded,
It. T. Leach vs.. Wilson county, from
Wilson county; opinion by Gaines, A. j.
This was q suit against appellee to re-
cover the amount OF warrant drawn in
favor of Maverick 6, KrOeger, June l,
1872, and endorsed by them, The war
rant was issued in obedience to an order
of the Commissioners court, which order
recited that it was for q balance
due for building a courthouse. The
defense set up that Maverick & KrOegeT
had been paid in full. Kroeger testified
that the handwriting on the back Of the
warrant was his, but he would almost
swear that he had never seen 1t, and he
further testified that the Hast payment was
made to mis- firm by the conveyance Of 8
tract of land which the county had rGCOv-
cred in Judgment against one Flores,
A witness, who was member OF the
Commissioners court at the time,
testified that the warrant was issued Of
the instance OF one Longwortb, one OF
the members Of said court as voucher
to the treasurer, and appellant testified
that he purchased the warrant from
L0ngworth for $3.50. KrOeger swore to
his handwriting, and also said he would
be party to no transaction to defrsud
the county. These facts tend to show
the warrant was fraudulent, but the court
erred in charging the Jury if they found
that Maverick & Kroeger had been paid
in full TO find for the defendant,
as the warrant may have been
issued to a third party :, in CON
sideration OF money TO pay Maverick &
Kroeger. For the appellant wassentitled
to verdict if the draft was issued to
Flores in paying for land conveyed TO the
contractors, although they may havssbeen
fully paid.
The Commissioners court in 1876,
passed an order directing the treasurer
to pay no claims not registered under the
act of May l, 1874, and the court below
charged that if four years had elapsed
since the above order before the bringing
OF this suit, it was barred by limitations.
II the order HAD been brought to the
notice of appellant it would set limlta-
lions in operation, but the record does
not show that he had knowledge of it,
and he could not be expected to keep up
with all the orders of the Commissioners
court. For the errors above mentioned
tho Indictment iG reversed and tha cause